tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7306557.post1430909662008709537..comments2015-03-29T16:17:27.698-07:00Comments on World History Blog: James Henderson Blount - American Rebel SeparatistMnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7306557.post-77397366638169360722008-11-30T09:28:00.000-08:002008-11-30T09:28:00.000-08:00Usually, hyperbole about the Civil War, published ...Usually, hyperbole about the Civil War, published on the web, is authored by individuals sympathetic to the Southern cause. It is amusing finding it alongside Yankee hauteur.<BR/><BR/>Truthfully, this morning is the first time I ever recall hearing of James Henderson Blunt, and even this awareness was acquired out of curiosity on a topic not related to the Civil War. Instead, it from from a text hosted at Google Books:<BR/><BR/><B>Blount, James H. Jr. 1912. The American occupation of the Philippines, 1898-1912. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. </B><BR/><BR/>This was James Blunt's son. He was a veteran of the Spanish American War, who after his volunteered commitment and Cuban duty had ended, subsequently volunteered to serve in the Philippines. He was appointed to be U.S. District Judge (Court of First Instance) in Philippine Islands, 1901-05. Whether his appointment in 1901 was from McKinley or Roosevelt (the assassination date strongly indicates it was McKinley), it is difficult to advance a credible argument that he was a pure-partisan Democrat. He was without doubt appointed by a Republican executive. I stayed up the whole night reading the text, and it seems to offer a decent write-up of the Philippine–American War from the perspective of a Ground Officer who foungt the insurgency directly on the field of battle, and then served on The Judge Advocate General staff. His depiction of McKinley was not kind, and intimating that poor war policy had been formulated as a reelection strategy; nor was he kind in descriptions of the two early civilian committees sent there at his behest. He made a good case for Philippine Sovereignty, thoroughly trashing the policy of Benevolent Assimilation, showing that it denigrated the service of American Military Personnel serving there, as well as the native population. Dean Conant Worcester, a McKinley appointed to the Philippine Commission, and later, secretary of the interior for the Philippine Insular Government, took umbrage to Blunt Jr.'s depiction. In a text arguing in favor of Benevolent Assimilation, asserting the Filipinos were inherently savages unable to provide for their own governance though self-government instituted among their own citizenry. Worcester was considered to be the committee's Philippine expert, because his occupation was zoologist, and two of his field expeditions had been to those Islands. Fascinating.<BR/><BR/>Now, returning to James Henderson Blunt Sr. He was born in a landed gentry Georgia family in 1837. He volunteered in the Second Georgia Battalion, Floyd Rifles, serving as a private for two years, and then a Lt. Colonel for two more. Indications are that this battalion fought without bringing dishonour and shame down upon their heads. He was allowed to campaign successfully for office as a US House of Representatives member in 1873, and was reelected to that office nine consecutive terms after this. His age at the time of his enlistment into the South's military in 1861, was all of 24 years, yet he had already graduated from the University of Georgia, Athens, studied law, and been admitted to the bar for two years. The Confederacy was wrong, and fomented upon the evil predicate that slavery ownership was a Natural Right which the Federal Government had not the legitimate power to abrogate, but many who took up arms for the South believed they were defending State Sovereignty from an overreaching encroachment upon the natural liberties, and States' Rights. It was the realisation that this obscene assertion of a preeminent and preexistent right to own humans had caused the dissolution of The Union and bloody war between Americans that was the catalyst for enacting the 13th and 14th Amendments, in an effort to moot a great deal of the States' Rights Arguments. These amendments were justifiable, and served the higher good. <BR/><BR/>Your assertion that the Morgan Report was a major contributory factor for the 1898 Congressional annexation of Hawaii need be substantiated with citations, given the events of that era; The Spanish-American War, The Occupation of the Philippines, and the widely held belief belief that Asian markets needed to be opened up to received American goods.<BR/><BR/>All War is inherently evil, even when fought for justifiable reasons. It permeates all sides of the conflict, and woefully affects the native peasantry chained to their pitiful possession of dirt in the midst of the firefights. Personal Honour is not a fungible commodity. It cannot be acquired on the field of battle. This is one of the two great lies states tell their soldiers, and history has shown that far too many fall for the deception, expending their personal honour cheaply, thinking it falls as manna in the everalways falling darkness of war, only to discover upon their return home, that within the desolation of their barren souls, there is only what remains.IntelligentDeclinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14671022162527115660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7306557.post-50681857291632574492007-07-12T18:32:00.000-07:002007-07-12T18:32:00.000-07:00Hey, I somehow missed this. I need to visit more ...Hey, I somehow missed this. I need to visit more often. Good post, thanks.Grant Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09000587138210339022noreply@blogger.com